McIntyre on CNN

Well folks, sometime in the next 10 minutes. SteveM is part of a panel on CNN. Campbell Brown if you get a chance. I’ll probably just delete this post in 20 minutes depending on my mood so comments might not last.

Ryan Osaid

John F. Pittmansaid

He also is doing the meme NOT to answer the questions asked. Only the nut jobs don’t recognize that it has ben warming since the LIA, and the lawyer was correct. Climate changes. They are using the argument that there are so many papers must be right. Followed by how great peer reveiw is. Bet you know all about that Ryano, JeffID? lol

Ryan Osaid

ed Samsel, Ph. D.said

Two lies/coverups: water vapor is the key to this hypothesis, CO2 is secondary, fact unmentioned. The average lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~ 10 yrs or less by about 30 peered geochemical papers, the 100 yrs average lifetime was made up by UN without any evidence. Now they’re saying millenia, disgraceful lies. Ed

turkeylurkeysaid

Well, I can’t find Steve McI, but I found a segment with Wegman.
It is called Cloud over Climate.
He is being super careful, as we might expect.
Over at CNN.com videos
Besides the story of the stick,
he covers the lack of independence, and is cut off in mid sentence.
TL

Bryan H.said

Don’t have cable so awaiting a youtube video of it. Hopefully somebody recorded it and it goes up soon. The commends on CA are pretty positive and looks like they didn’t try to abuse Steve in any fashion, thats a good start at least🙂

As a side note I’m really waiting for somebody, anybody, to get on the news show and talk about the actual articles in peer-reviewed physics journals that show that the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t even exist. That would make my day, climate-science is so much cargo-cult science its maddening.

Jeff C.said

Sorry, I missed Steve. If anyone hears of a re-broadcast, please post it.

Hope this isn’t too OT, but in response to #14 (Jeff Id)
“We’re going to have the policy shoved down our throats eventually. Like free health care, socialism has too easy a message.”

Maybe it’s naivety on my part, but I’m optimistic. Unlike health care, there is no perceived personal benefit to cap and trade or some similar scheme’s staggering cost. At least with health care, you supposedly get something.

I don’t think Americans are willing to pony up for some nebulous, save-the-world cause. They will only go for it if the overall threat is obvious (e.g. shooting Nazis in WW2) or there is a tangible personal benefit (Medicare, Interstate Hwy System, etc.). Copenhagen is the type of thing that loses elections.

Senator Webb (a Democrat elected in 2006) warned Obama not to make any promises in Copenhagen he couldn’t keep. That was a very good sign and I believe it reflects the political mood.

Al S.said

For Bryan H. and any others interested in the physics: Jeff just did an article a couple days ago on the reality of a heating effect; I intend to get back and study it more.
I too was wondering whether there was something in the Gerlich/Tseuchner “Falsification…” article; several people have said that it had major flaws (on Physics.forums, I think). I cannot judge becuz I don’t do advanced thermodynamics.) I will have to take Lucia and Jeff at their word.
Al S.

Mark Tsaid

I have hear that, too, and even Steve Milloy (or Chris Horner, not sure which replied) said the paper was over complicated when I asked for the Junkscience opinion (yes, they will respond to email on occasion).

One thing worth noting, however, is that I’ve yet to see a good reason why it is flawed. Not that one doesn’t exist, just that I haven’t seen one.

Hope Steve had fun on CNN. Whether or not his appearance has any impact on their viewership is, to me, an aside to the much greater importance that bigger media is taking his opinion seriously (or at least paying it lip service). That by itself is a rather large accomplishment.

#25, the problem is in the math. I haven’t worked it myself yet but maybe it’s worth a bit of time. My point about AGW is that we don’t really know what the warming magnitude is and we ‘really’ don’t know if it causes any problems at all. Even more than that- not knowing – is the asinine attempts to stop CO2 production. The science has been corrupted by an attack on capitalism IMHO, and it’s foolish to an extreme.

jefsaid

I watched a little of the end of “aftermath: population zero” the other day. They said that after 200 years the CO2 would be back to where it should be.

I think the show’s goal was to give people the idea that Humans are bad for Gaia (but I watched very little of it)

But the end was pretty up-beat. After a while Gaia cleans herself up🙂 Two hundred years is nothing in the scheme of things (think 1800)…so therefore, stop all the AGW funding, transfer to advanced nuclear research.

Spend 30, 40 years to perfect adv. nuke of some type, then in a couple hundred years the CO2 will be back to “normal” and everyone will be happy

I heard the comments by Schmidt and Mann on audio feed while I was waiting for my segment

It had to be amazingly hard. The gave the sound feed, you’re waiting for your cue. They finally show your face live, you tense up, ready for the main event. The pretty girl with no knowledge describes all the names you’re called and then cuts to commercial. Stuck in a room. Two minutes later, all the ad hom’s are repeated, a question is asked and….SHOWTIME.

Kinda like defending capitalism to Kim Jong Il.

There was an intentional effort to put you off your game. It’s kind of awesome that it didn’t work but it’s hard to say they didn’t give it their best shot.

I can’t watch CNN under non-waterboarding circumstances and actually recorded it this time. Maybe I’ll burn the DVR.

I thought that was an interesting attempt at reframing by Oppenehimer. I don’t think it helped though and I thought it odd that he brought up the CRU temperature code which wasn’t mentioned by anyone before as far as I can tell.

Kondealersaid

Alf, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is everything he says he is and more. He is as far removed from the nut-jobs in the IPCC as you can get.
Here is a quote of his about the Maldives;
“In the IPCC scenarios, the Maldives were condemned to disappear in the sea in the near future (e.g. Hoffman et al., 1983; IPCC, 2001),” but that their own “documentation of actual field evidence contradicts this hypothesis”
Morner, N.-A., Tooley, M. and Possnert, G. 2004. New perspectives for the future of the Maldives. Global and Planetary Change 40: 177-182.

P Gosselinsaid

The EPA pretty much slammed the book on it.
It’s a pollutant, it causes catastrophic warming, we’re stepping in and we’re shoving what we want down your throats. Just shut up and take it.
It’s going to take a bloody revolution to reinstate sanity I’m afraid.

P Gosselinsaid

boballabsaid

#35
Morner is the real deal as someone else said he is a former IPCC author that quit when the “Climalogist” kept making off the wall claims and ignoring th experts in the field (Also see the Landsea affair).

He goes back a along ways and is one of the pioneers in the field he works in. You should go and find the story about his work in the Maldives and the lonely tree that Green Weenies hate. I not making that up, there was this one tree down near the ocean and it showed the problem of the IPCC’s water rise statements. I believe you can see Morner talk about it in the documentary “Great Global Warming Swindle”. When the Green Weenies try to kill a tree you know something isn’t kosher.

After a good night of rest, CNN did everything they could to ambush Steve. The introduced the lying scientists so perfectly and name called Steve two times before introducing him. After having to listen to mann and Schmidt give their sweep it under the rug BS, they put Steve’s head up, say you’ve been called a bozo and a moron… now to commercial.

Let that sit in your head for a few then back to the ‘panel’.

Bozo and moron again, McCarthy, then — go.

I haven’t turned CNN on in probably a year now. Every time I do I’m reminded why. It’s nothing but a smear job to sweep the emails under the rug while giving some appearance of giving say to those who know what’s happening.

How many times did they say Steve’s a skeptic?
How many times did we get the impression that CA doesn’t beleive in global warming.

Oppenheimer was given nice quiet introductions but when he received the question about – to a layperson such as myself it appears that the scientists —- She’s pretending to be too stupid to figure it out, which she may be but John Stuart figured it out just fine.

When I think about the emails and the ‘conspiracy theory’ (booming voice), oppenheimer lying repeatedly about both the emails, China and the IPCC just made it look more likely.

BraudRPsaid

Steve’s and Horner’s lack of effective responses to some of Oppenheimer’s dubious claims (including his suggestion that ALL 2500 “scientists” participating in the latest IPCC report agreed with the UN conclusions) will mean that the average joes who saw this program will conclude that Oppenheimer won the debate.

P Gosselinsaid

Jeff Id
Ambush is what I posted some hours ago, and you’ve reached the same conclusion.http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/cnn/#comment-4079
I don’t mean to say Steve is incompetent on TV – he did as well as anyone could in an ambush situation. It was a trap. Yet, I do have to question Steve’s judgement on deciding to appear on a climate sceptic hostile network. That puzzles me.

Mikesaid

I think some comments here are too negative. Steve did a fine job – if only just by not biting on the slander and sticking to the facts. He came across as a sincere, likable, level-headed person – much more so than Oppenheimer with this used cars salesman grin.

Mikesaid

Oh and one other thing. These “scientists”, by initially denying wholesale, will only subject themselves to a long, grinding retreat – much more damaging in the long run than coming clean immediately. If CNN wants to give them a hand with this strategy, it’s fine by me.

alfsaid

Kondealer:
Thanks for the response. It just seems odd that a person who has done as much research as Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner should be ignored. I have listen to a number of interviewed scientists and they all without explanation state that sea levels are rising at alarming rates. What is with the science that Knowledgeable people would misrepresent the data? What is the real truth of the matter?

Kenneth Fritschsaid

While I would have watched the C Brown show if I had stumbled onto to it, I would certainly not go out of my way to watch it.

Why do we have such great expectations that the “next” round of interviews (and on TV particularly) will reveal something, that those of us who pride ourselves in being reasonably well informed by digging through the facts of the matter has not, and do it in the MTV moment that the modern media presents. I think those of us who participate in blogging these days become even more frustrated with these shows in that we cannot ask more relevant questions – like one can in blogging.

I guess my interest in a C Brown like show would be to put a personality, body and face with a persona that has become familiar through other venues such as blogging . Most of these shows are staged with an end product in mind and the interviews are rather incidental to that product – and it does not take a climate (or rocket) scientist to figure that out. Now if TV interview shows started using a blog format with a neutral moderator, I might become interested.

I think the problem and fraud and insanity needs to be clearly presented but wasn’t. Sorry Steve

The battle’s focus is how to interpret the proxies’ suggestions for temperature preserved in nature. Mann’s proxies made a nice hockey stick but starting in the 60’s suggested temperatures had declined. That was in direct contradiction to our instrumental record. So now the dilemma and the only three possible roads to take.

1) If the proxies don’t match temperatures from our recent and most accurate observations, then discard this proxy and all interpretations based upon it. That would be my choice. Throw out the hockey stick and look for better proxies.

2) Conversely we could discard all our instrumental data, because it doesn’t match the proxies. That suggests our improved direct measuring systems are wrong. I think that would border on insanity, wouldn’t you? But it leaves us wondering why CRU actually deleted all their raw data pre 1980’s.

3) We can believe that the proxies were reliable when constructing the hockey stick up to the 60’s, but then for some unknown reason the laws of nature reversed themselves, and now those very same proxies are no longer reliable. I think that choice would be equally insane wouldn’t you? But it does make a dramatic scary hockey stick. So that is what Mike Mann chose. He just hid the decline with his trick to make the proxies look reliable and then denied requests that would allow others to replicate his work.